DOCUMENT RESUME.

ED 082 758 LI 004 479

AUTHOR Curley, Walter W-.; And OthersTITLE. A Public Library Prograi for the Commonwealth of

Virginia.INSTITUTION Little (Arthur D.), Inc., Cambridge, Mass.SPONS-AGENCY Virginia State Library, Richmond.PUB DATE Oct 68NOTE 51p.; (0 references)

EDRS PRICE MF=$0.65 BC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS Library Networks; Library Planning; *Library.

Programs; Library Services; *Public Libraries; State'Aid; *State Libraries; State Programs

'IDENTIFIERS *Virginia

ABSTRACTThe following basic conclusions were reached after

studying the libraries of Virginia by questionnaires, interviews andvisits: the current formula for distributing state and federal aid isnot completely satisfactork, and the level of funding js so low that,its impactis almost insignificant; a coordinated libraLy network inwhich regional library groups are encouraged to develop and certainservices are provided on a statewide.basis appears to be morefeasible and acceptable than a library system that introduces anadministrative level betweeh local libraries and the State Library;such a network will operate effectively only if the State Library.assumes a strong leadership role; the interlibrary loan program needsexpansion and would: be improved by more sophisticated bibliographicaltools and better communit.ation; and, a library 'school located inVirginia would enhancethe development of library service within thestate. Recommendations are made based on these conclusions for theimprovement of libraries in the state of Virginia. (Author/SJ)

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

O

A PUBLIC LIBRARY PROGRAM FOR THECOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

ARTTIT.YR D. LITTLE, INC:NANAGEMEN.T SCIENCZS L/BRAIM

.1

A Report to

THE VIRGINIA STATE LIBRARY BOARD,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION &WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EOUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN.ATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY RIPRE.SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLkCY.

Zrthur 711.314ttIc3inc.

O

Members of our case team were cordially, received by both public

librarians and the State Librarian and his staff. To those who

were interviewed, as well as to those who answered our question-

naire, we express our thanks,for their cooperation and the

information with which they provided us.

William GriswoldJohn BullardMary A. Henegha:nWalter W. Curley, Case Leader

II.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY 1

Purpose and Scope 1

Conclusions 1

Recommendations 2

DATA USED IN THIS STUDY 5

A PLAN FOR STATE AID TO LIBRARIES 11

Objectives and Basic Provisions of a Funding PlanImplementing the Plan i 13

ORGANIZATION OF A PUBLIC LIBRARY NETWORK 17

Regional Library Groups 17Role of the Extension Division 20

STATEWIDE SERVICES OF THE LIBRARY NETWORK ..... 25

Interlibrary Loan 25-Reference 29Bibliographical Tools 30Communications, and Delivery 30DeVelopment of Library Collections 31

Centralized Cataloging and Processing ....... . . .. . 34Other Services 36

11.

FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS.

Library EducationThe Virginia Library Association'The Virginia State Library BoardCertificaticnOther Legistative Considerationss.'414

21Ttlittr 13.3tittle.lur.

SUMMARY

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

Arthur D. Little, Inc. was directed in its contract with the Virginia StateLibrary Board "to prepare a plan for coordinating the present public library systems and forthe deVelopment of a broad program of library service.. Cooperative endeavors betweenvarious libraries should be investigated as well as the feasibility of using 'advanced communi-cations devices' and the use of automated equipment. The potential of regional service plansshould be explored and appropriate recommendations offered. Plans for achieving the goalof providing library service to the unserved will have to be developed and means for financingthis delineated."

The first part of our study involved a look at the operations and services of theVirginia State Library. Some of the recommendations made as a result of that study arerepeated in this report, especially as they affect overall public library service in Virginia. Wehave also develOpeda program of library service incorporating what we believe are some newconcepts on funding and organization, and the main portion of this report is devoted to thatprogram.

Our techniques' included a questionnaire, interviews and visits at selectedlibraries in Virginia, a meeting with the Development Committee of the. Virginia LibraryAssociation, and meetings with the State Librarian andmany of the members of his staff.The questionnaire and interviews were supplemented by a variety of printed sources, and wedrew also upon our own practical ekperience With other library systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Our basic conclusions are as follbws:

. The current formula for the distribution of State and federal aid doesnot appear to be completely satisfactory to any type of library and the,level of funding is so low that its impact is ahnost insignificant.

A coordinated library network in which'regional library groups areencouraged to develop and certain services are provided on a statewidebasis appears to be more feasible and alSo more acceptable to librariansthan a library system that introduces an administrative level betWeenlocal libraries and the State LibrarY.

Such a network will operate effectively only if the Virginia State Libraryassumes a strong leadership role.. A close working relationship with the

Irthur D3tittltilnr.

O.

Virginia Library Association would greatly strengtheri.the State Library.Its effectiveness also depends in part on the maintenance of a balance'between urban and rural representation on the State Library Board.

The state's program of interlibrary loan needs expansion and would bemuch improved by the addition of more sophisticated bibliographicaltools and better communications. ,

The demonstration library has been to a degree successful in bringinglibrary service to unserved areas. Now it has served its purpose and someother activity should be developed.

The program of the Extension Division has been limited by the demandsof the demonstrations but now a more varied, aggressive program mustbe established.

There is widespread opinion that a library school located in Virginiawould enhance the development of library service within the state.

RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the above conclusions, we offer the following recommendations:

A vastly increased and differently structured program of state aid tolibraries should be adopted. The total amount of funds required if theprogram is fully implemented will be $5.5 million.

The funds should be apPortioned'ii follows:

Matching state funds to all libraries equal t620% of local funding.

$30 per square mile for each county or regional library.

$20,000 for each political subdivision (see further recommendations)in a regional library.

An amount equal to 10% of the state allocation for-public libraries,but not less than $500,000, for the State Library to implementspecial programs.

Regional library groups are desirable and may includo up to 10 politicalsubdivisions, of which no more than five, may be counties.

24thur .03tittl v. 31n r.

Potir coordinated library districts should be established.

The State Library in effect acts as a library system, and no other sys-.temi should be formed.

An advisory committee to the State Librarian and the State LibraryBoard should be set up; the President of the Virginia Library Association

. and the Chairman of the Development Committee should be unofficialmembers.

The collection at the State Library should be strengthened and tacquisitions policy of the General Library broadened.

The State Library should share its last-resource function with (therlibraries in the state, particularly those of colleges and universities.No other libraries should be asked to serve as resource centers exceptinsofar as they hold in-depth subject.collections.

-

Effort and funds should be expended to dramatically enlarge the refer-ence andinterlibrary loan network. The TWX'system just installed shouldbe used for this, and bibliographical tools should be developed as de -.cribed below.

.4.High. priority should be given to the building of bibliographical toolsincluding union catalogs on the computer and in book form andunion lists of serials, both within regions and on a statewide level.

Twenty to thirty subject centers should be designated within the state.

The Extension Division,of the State Library.should be substantiallystrengthened:-

To include at least four general public library consultants

To include consultants with specialties

To administer a portion of funds provided to State Library under.the proposed state aid law to operate library district offices.

The Extension Division should cease to conduct demonstration projects.

Centralized processing in some, form should be offered by the StateLibrary to libraries in the Commonwealth.

2irthur

All ordering, cataloging, aLd processing done at the State Library should

be centralized in the General Library. o.

o A: library school should be lo&ated in Virginia, and the possibility shouldbe investigated of instituting library technician courses at community

colleges.

art1)%tr 13.31.;ttle,11rir.

I. DATA USED IN THIS STUDY

A questionnaire was sent to all the public libraries listed in the Statistics'of Virginia Public Libraries, 1966-67. A total of 81 questionnaires were returned from thefollowing types of libraries:

Regional 19

CountyCity 29Town 6

The questionnaire is reprinted in the Appendix. It is to be noted that thequestionnaire did not ask for statistical information which was available to us in theinformation and publications supplied by the Virginia State Library.

In addition to circulating the questionnaire, we visited libraries representinga variety of different organizational patterns and geographical regions. The followinglibraries were visited:

Richmond Public LibraryVirginia. Beach Public LibraryMartinsville Memorial Public LibraryLonesome Pine Regional LibraryWalter Cecil Rawls Library and MuseumMcIntire Public LibraryRoanoke County Public LibraryRoanoke Public LibraryOrange County Public. LibraryPearisburg Public Library.Arlington County Public Library.Fairfax County Public LibraryFalls Church Public Library

At the Richmond Public Library we met with a group.that included librarians fromHenrieo County Free Library and Chesterfield County Library; and our meeting at theVirginia Beach Public Library included librarians from the Norfolk Public Library,Chesapeake Public Library,'and Portsmouth Public Library. We visited Nelson County,which without lilrary service, and held a telephone interview with one of the individuals

-.who are actively working for public library 'service there. We made unofficial visits to theGordon Street Branch in Charlottesville, Salem Public Library, and Norfolk Public Library.

A member of the case team met with the Development Committee of theVirginia Library Association. This group, composed of both librarians and other individuals

interestedin library service, provided a great deal of background information about publiclibraries in Virginia and provided.a tentative list of the libraries which should be visited.The final 1st was prepared by the State Librarian and members of his-staff and was basedon the recommendations of the Development Committee.

Before we could prepare effective funding and service programs it wasnecessary to have a clear picture of the distribution of population in Virginia and reasonableprojections of the extent and location of future gyowth. The figures and projectionsincluded in the following tables were obtained from publications of the Division of Planning,Governor's Office, Commonwealth of Virginia.

PRESENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION OF VIRGINIA

1967 1970 1980

State 4,602,091 6,032,700

Metropolitan Areas

Bristol Area Virginia Portion (57,674) (62,270) (72,500)

Bristol City 16,07 17,468 17,900

Washington Co. 40,717 44,802 54,600

Charlottesville Area (74,766) (85,372) (107,700)

Charlottesville City 37,533 43,540 51,700

Albemarle Co. 37,233 41,832 56,000

Danville Area

Danville City.

Pittsylvania Co.

(113,694) (124,809) (141,600)

49,681 - 53,798 60,500

64,013 71,011 81,100

Lynchburg Area (123,304) (132,398) (158,300)

Lynchburg City 56,298 59,251 65,400

Amherst Co. 25,953 .27,825 .34,000

Campbell Co. 41,053 45,322 5000

Newport News - Hampton

Hampton City

Newport News City

Williamsburg City

James City Co.

York Co.

(339,971) (411,800)

134;536. 156,100

145,275 168,800

9,112 9,800

15,884 20,300

35,164 56;700

artintr 711.3tittir.31nr.

Metropolitan Areas (Continued)

1967 1970ti

'o 980

Norfolk-Portsmouth Area (714,620) (792,680) (895,000)

Chesapeake City 92,922 109,692 132,200

Norfolk City 309,788 336,514 351,900

Portsmouth City 117,891 120,015 125,100

Suffolk City 12,175 12,332 13;400

Virginia Beach City 145,843 175,237 226,400

Nansemond Co. 36,001 38,890 46,100

Petersburg-Hopewell (125,875) (144,796) (174,100)

Colonial Heights City 14,137 - 15,360 20,200

Hopewell City. 20,993 24,326 29,200

Petersburg City 37,299 38,641. 40,600

Dinwiddie Co. 25,857 29,69.1 33,900

Prince George Co. 27,589 36,778 50,100

Richmond Area (531,960) (576,104) (693,600)

Richmond City 216,456 215,071 230,300

Chesterfield Co. 105,097 131,984 170,000

Goochland Co. 10,375 11,055 20,100

Hanover. Co. 35,125 . 39,401 58,300

Henrico Co. 157,074 170,827 200,500

Powhatan Co. 7,833 7,766 14,600

Roanoke Area (195,583) (218,180) , (262,500).

Roanoke City 97,551 104,008. 107,600

Botetourt Co. 18,052 18,842 20,600

Roanoke Co. 79,980 95,330 134200i

.

Washington Area - Virginia Portion (846,467) (959,250).

41,342,300)

'Alexandria City 113,406 147,000 181,800

Fairfax City . 22,253 24,500 36,000

Falls Church City 11,208 12,000 13,000

Arlington Co. 183,980 197,350 215,600

Fairfax Co. 389,396 424,900. 615;000

Loudoun Co. 34,444 43,000 80,200

Prince William Co. 91,780 110,500 200,700

Nonmetropolitan Combined Areas 1967

Buena Vista .- LexingtonLexington Area (31,954)

Buena Vista City 6,869

Lexington City 8,454

Rockbridge Co. 16,631

sr

1980

(36,500)

.8,300

11,100

17,100

athur

Nonmetropolitan Combined Arens (Continued)

1967. 1980

Clifton Forge.- Covington Area' (29,314) (31,600)

Clifton Forge City 6,052 6,700

Covington City 10,055 10,000

Allegheny Co. 13,207 14,700

Eastern Shore of Virginia Area (45,981) (46,000)

Accomack Co. 28,969 28,500

Northampton Co. 17,012. 17,500, .

Franklin Area' (28,577) .- (32,500).

Franklin City 7,971 9,300

Southampton Co. 20,606 23,200

Fredericksburg Area (53,601) (73,900)

Fredericksburg City 15,070 18,300

Spotsylvania Co. 16,652 23,000

Stafford Co, 21,879 2,2,600

Galax Area (48,227) .(56,800)

Galax City 6,691 . 7,400.

Carroll Co. 24,587 30,600

Grayson Co. 16,949 18,700

'Emporia Area' (17,211) (19,600)

Emporia City' 5,376 5,700

Greensville Co. 11,835 13,900

Harrisonburg Area (60,455) (76,600)

HarrisonbUrg City 14,343 17,060

Rockingha'rn Co. 46,112 59,600 ,

Martinsville Area' (73,044) (104,600)

Martinsville City 21,417'.. 26,300

Henry Co. 51,627 78,300

Norton Area (44,836) (39,300)

Norton City '5,137 5,500

Wise Co. 39,699 33,900

Radford - New River Area (78,086) (114,700)

Radford City 11,351 13,500

Montgomery Co. 37,930 64,300Pulaski Co. 28,805 36,800

1967 1980

Nonmetropolitan Combined Areas (Continued)

South Boston Area* (42,591) (49,700)South Boston City 7,556 8,600Halifax Co. 35,035 41,100

Staunton - Waynesboro (85,552) (109,0001

Staunton City 24,735 28,100Waynesboro City 17,777 22,400Auguste. Co 43,040 58,400

Winchester Area (42,265) (54,200)

Winchester City 1,5,321 16,000Frederick. Co. 26,944 38,200

Counties Not Included in Metropolitan

Areas or Combined Areas

Amelia* . .7,979 9,000Appomattox* 10,225 12,400

Bath 5,349 5,500

Bedford 33,469 37,800Bland 5,958 6,100Brunswick' 17,124 16,500

Buchanan 38,175 43,400Buckingham' 10,884 11,500Caroline 13,940 17,000

Charles City' 6,311 .7,700

Charlotte' 13,872 14,800Clarke 8,232 9,100Craig 3,429 3,700Culpepper' 16,748 21,100Cumberland* 6,658 7,400

Dickenson 18,636 16,400Essex 7,481 9,200Fauquier 26,727 34,400Floyd 10,335 19,600Fltivanna* 7,628 8,500Franklin 28,829 35,000Giles 17,291 19,900Gloucester 13,369 17,700

Greene' 5,357 7,000Highland 2,853 2,500Isle of Wight* 19,096 23,200

arthur 11131ittle,ilstr.

Counties Not Included in Metropolitan

Areas or Combined Areas (Continued)

1967 1980

King and Queen' 5,238 4,600

King George 8,117 10,400

King William' 8,000 9,100

Lancaster 9,580 10,500

Lee 23,670 20,800

Louisa' 13,761 15,300

Lunenburg' 12,935 13,800

Madison* 8,763 10,200

Mathews*, 6,761 6,300

Mecklenburg* 34,528 41,900

Middlesex* 6,286 6,300

Nelson* 12,425 13.000

New Kent* 5,135 6,300

Northumberland 10,222 11,000

Nottoway' 14,906 14,900

Orange 13,453 15,300

Page 16,855 20,100

Patrick' 16,180 18,000

Prince Edward' 13,907 14,500

Rappahannock' 5,398 5,500

Richmond 6,896 8,000

Russell 27,563 30,600

Scott 25,083 27,800

Shenandoah 23,413 27,900

Smyth' 32,000 36,400

Surry 5,974 6,300

Sussex' 12,348 12,400

Tazewell 43,125 46,000

Warren 15;717 19,100

Westmoreland 12,091 15,000

Wythe*, 22,393 23,900

Provisional estimates; economic base studies not yet complete.

NOTE: Due to rounding, figures do not always add exactly to the totals given.

Source: Division of Planning, Governor's Office, Commonwealth of Virginia.

10

2irthur 13.31ittle3nr.

II. A PLAN FOR STATE AID TO LIBRARIES

State aid to public libraries is becoming a necessity in most states to evenout disparities in the quality of service available in different areas, to bring all libraries intoa service network, and to provide service to previously unserved areas. The library profes-sion and many state governments realize that although local support is absolutely necessaryto good library service, it must be supplemented with state and federal funding to providethe most effective funding mix. Larger units of service are generally recognized as beingdesirable, providing improved library service. .The present state aid formula is not conduciveto the development of larger units of service and in some ways actually acts as a deterrent.Above all, the level of state aid is far too low at present; to produce desired results it mustbe raised-sharply.

OBJECTIVES AND BASIC PROVISIONS OF A FUNDING PLAN

The funding plan should be directed toward several objectives:

It should act both as a supplement to local funds and as an incentiveto bring local support up to recommended minimum levels. Inthose situations, .few in number, where minimum support levels havebeen attained, the funds should allow for building depth into collec=---"tions and providing superior library service.

The specter of city libraries remaining aloof from larger units of serviceis frniliar in Virginia as ihmiliSTiother states, although it is becomingclear to us that this policy acts to their detrithent in the long run.Their eluctance to serve the suburbs is not based on a lack of desireto do so but rather on the failure of surrounding areas to make fundsavailable to cover the extension of service. An effective service net-work depends in large measure on the availability of the collections inmunicipal libraries and the willingness of the cities to participate in thenetwork. Allowing libraries to spring up around the core city tendsto hamper the development of larger service units and in the lonirunis self-defeating. Cities therefore must receive sufficient funding toallow them to participate effectively in the prop-am.

Approximately 20% of the people living in Virginia are Without publiclibrary service. Demonstration projects have met with some measure ofsuccess but they are time consuming and coStly, and overall progress istoo slow. A financial incentive, we feel, can bring unserved areas intoregional libraries; an extension of, service can then be offered from theexisting base of service.

11

2{rtitur D.3tittIattr.

The provision of library service to individuals liVing in sparsely settled.areas covering hundreds of square miles is costly. It also is desperatelyneeded. Funds should be allocated so that rural areas not only canprovide service but also can pay their way into a regional library groupwhich in some cases may contain urban areas as well.

Finally, in the development of larger units of service, it seems to usethat cOgnizance should be taken of the complications and costs_thatarise when more than One political subdivision is involved. Fundsshould be provided as an incentive to libraries to form these unitsdespite the burdens and complicating relationships that develop. Fundscould also ease the way in some cases for the relinquishing of local ,

autonomy to a larger unit ofseivice.

With these objectives clearly in mind, we recommend the following plan for providing stateaid to libiaries;,

(1) All libraries will receive state aid equal to 20% of local funds appropriated forlibrary service. The maximum grant to any one library under this provisionwill be $150,000.

(2) A mileage grant equal to $30 per square mile will be given to.each countyand regional library for the total area a the political subdivisions served.

(3) A $20,000 grant to regional library groups will be made for each political sub-division participating in the program.

To qualify under item 3, a library group must consist of no more than ten political sub-divisions (municipalities or counties of more than 5000 people, having libraries or librarysystems), no more than five of whic.i may be counties. AU subdivisions of a participatingcounty are included in this count, whether or not they themselves are participating, Thuseach regional library will be limited in its growth to the maximum number of units allowedless those located within its boundaries that are not-participating.

Under item 3 each unit in the fourth year of its participation in a regionalsystem must Provide sufficient funds from local funding to meet minimum state requirementsfor local support. This allows for service to be extended to unserved areas in what amountsto a demonstration program and gives those areas providing less than the minimum amountthree years to provide the necessary local funding. If then or any time thereafter localsupport drops below this level, funding to the regional library group under item 3 will bedenied and that political subdivision will cease to be a part of the regional group. If local'funding to any unit drops below the average of the appropriations of the last three years,state funds for that: unit in all three catagories will be denied to its regional library group.

12

arthur ZII3Little,31nr.

We believe that all political units within a regional library group shouldbe Contiguous and the total population within a group at time of formation should notexceed 750,000 persons. It is also our opinion that there should be a provision in the lawto the effect that the dollar amounts adopted in the state plan should be reviewed at leastonce every five years to determine their adequacy.

In an earlier report to the State Library, we recommended a substantialincrease in the operating budget of the State Library. In addition, we recommend that asum equal to 10% (but not less than $500,000) of all state aid to libraries be grantedannually to the State Library to provide for the systematic building of bibliographic tools(union catalogs, union lists of serials, etc.), absorb many of the costs associated with inter-library loan, fund coordinated regional plans, and fund the building of a service network.The State Library probably should not use any of this 10% grant for assistance to individuallibraries.

The total package here, if fully implemented, would cost approximately$5.5 million annually, given the current level of local funding. For the first year it is esti-mated that the program would cost approximately $4 million. The program is costly, but inour opinion it is structured to allow library service in Virginia to develop along efficientand productive lines. There is-little question that library service in Virginia needs supportand in substantial amounts if it is to cope with.the responsibility it has to its citizens. Wefeel this funding plan will accomplish the desired result..

IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

Funding procedures under I and 2 would seem to us reasonably straight-forward. Each library filests statement of income and service area and, provided localfunding is maintained, funds are disbursed. Under provision 3, there are numerous compli-eating factors which require on occasion , judgments to be rendered. For regional librarygroups to bk.! forthed or to be enlarged, certain criteria' must: be-met. In addition, a planof service should be submitted to thce State Librarian, Who should approve or reject requests .1in consultation with an advisory committee. A plan might be rejected, for example, if theproposed regional library group would leave a county or two in a pocket unable to join anyneighboring regional libraries. For purposes of sound planning and to permit budgeting inadvance, funding should be limited to, allow only 20 additional units to join regional librarygroups each year until the growth of regional units subsides.

To demonstrate how the funding program,wOuld operate, four exampleshave been selected presenting varied library situations and how they might fare.

13

Arthur

(1) Lonesome. Pine Regional

1966-67 local support 42,915.

20% state aid 8,583$30/square mile 35,4904 political subdivisions 80,000

Total for present region $166,988 166,988

If Scott County (currently unserved)were to join the regional library:

$30/square mile1 political subdivision

Total for added county

1.6,17020,000

$36,170 36,170

Total $203,158

(2) Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Norfolk

1966-67 local support 1,041,16620% state aid 208,232

. $30/square mile 20,010.4 political subdivisions 80,000

Total-for present region $1,349,408

(3) Eastern Shore

1966-67 local support 23,68620% state aid 4,737$30/square mile 20,880.2 political subdivisions 40,000

Total for present region, $89,303

- 14

2Irthur D.11.ittlanr.

(4) Albermarle, Charlottesville, Orange

1966-67 local suppOrt20% state aid$30/square mile3 political subdivisions

160,53232,10635,97060,000

Total for present region $288,608 288,608

If Bushingham and FluvannaCounties were served:

$30/square mile 25,7402 political subdivisions 40,000

Total for added counties 65,740 65,740

Total $354,348

15

2rthur

III. ORGANIZATION OF A PUBLIC LIBRARY NETWORK

REGIONAL LIBRARY GROUPS

For some years there has been a trend in the library field to larger units ofservice. This has taken several formS ranging from merging of library units into regionalgroups to the creation of_library systems. A regional library group is in effect a mergedlibrary with a single delminiitrative unit. A cooperative library system is a system in whichthe individual libraries constitute separate administrative units and services are provided bythe system headquarters across geographical boundaries. Library systems often providean additional layer of administration; they take many different forms too numerous to men-tion here. In general, they may provide such services as:centralized processing, consultantservice, interlibrary loan, reference backup, audiovisual collections, and resource building.Systems are costly and a substantial amount of the funds allocated to them goes into overhead.They are, however, often "Useful in very large states or those having many units of library service,where, because of the geography and the level and type of library development, it is apparentlythe only way the larger service unit concept can be implemented. Ina state with a relativelysmall number of libraries and with large unserved areas, it is possible to approach the develop-ment of services and the.larger unit ofservice by means, of regional library. groups.

The relative weakness of the overall public library situation in Virginia, once. .

clearly understood, suggests to us certain organizational alternatives which will allow libraryservices to-make maximum use of the funds allocated to them. As the result of a carefulanalysis of the public library situation in Virginia, we have reached the following conclusionsregarding organizational structure:

Development of regional library groups should be encouraged. It is ouropinion that they provide the best approach to maximizing the numberand quality of library services offered to the citizens of the state.

A regional library group should be defined as consisting of two or morepolitical subdivisions which agree to forM a single administrative unit forthe purpose of providing library service to the participating area.

Library systems in the dommonly understood sense should not be formed.We do not recommend the introduction of any unit of administrationbetween operating libraries and the State Library.

The state should be divided into geographic areas, hereafter referred toas diStriCts,.four in nuinber, although no separate administrative unit orservice organization should, be created. Within a district, librarians CouldMeet monthly, to discuss the needs of the district and the building ofcollections of interest to, the district and to make recornmendations to the

17

Arthur 1. ittic,3litr.

Extension Division. One consultant from the Extension Divisionshould be assigned to a district.

Memb' rship in a regional library group carries with it the obligation toparticipate fully in an interlibrary loan program and to honor a statewidereciprocal borrower's card. The latter stipulation may be waived forthree years. Receipt of funds under categories 1 and 2 in the fundingplan is not dependent upon acceptance of the latter provision but fundingunder 3 requires acceptance of this provision.

The State Library should offer, among other services, centralized cata-loging and possibly ordering and processing, consultant services, anaggressive interlibrary loan program, and planning and funding for theconstruction and maintenance of bibliographic tools.

Participation in a regional library group by a political subdivision isvoluntary. Regional library groups must submit a plan of service annuallyfor approval by the State Librarian or the State Library Board and anadvisory committee.

The heart of the program suggested here is the fact that it calls for the fullmerging of libraries into larger units. It is conceivable that if the program recommended weresubstantially implemented thirty or forty public libraries in Virginia would emerge and everycitizen within the state would be provided with an adequate public library service. It is not.easy to get libraries to merge, but we believe that the level of 'funding proposed will help toencourage the creation of larger units of service, while at the same time it makes possible anacceptable level of library service to the people of Virginia.

In some ways we appear to differ.with the recommendations of the PublicLibrary Development Committee as outlined in its report to the Virginia Library Association,November, 1966. In reality we are not far apart. We both are in agreement that the situation).calls for action and that there is a sense of urgency in coping with the problem at hand; Our

'approach tosolying these problems doe's differ Somewhat. Essentially it comes down to ourfeeling that more can be accomplished by placing the funds in the hands of library agenciesserving the public than by putting emphasis on a consulting and coordinating effort.

We do recommend thata coordinating effor 2nd a consulting effort be offeredbut on a reduced level and covering larger geographical areas. Four districts would be formedand a consultant on the staff of the State Library would be assigned toeach. They probablyshould live in the-assigned district and have offices in one, of its libraries. Each would act asa coordinatof and a consultant and would administer a small budget' available from the StateLibrary's portion of the state aid budget to co--- the costs involved in the coordinating effort.Some of these costs might be:

18

arthualltitticifttr.

tit

1-

Delivery service as part of the interlibrary loan program.

Promotion of district-wide services and workshops.

Teletype operator and interlibrary loan clerk.

Secretarial assistance.

Preparation of booklists.

Libraries in each district should be represented on an advisory committee which should meetmonthly with the consultant coordinator. Recommendations would be forthcoming at thattime not only for services to be offered within the district but also offered on a statewidebasis by the State Library. Certainly one of the coordinating tasks within a given districtwould be to develop an interlibrary loan network within the district and relate it to the StateLibrary.

As larger units of service develop the coordinating effort will be less of aproblgm than it is at the outset. We believe that the approach we suggest would get consul-tants into the field better than the present system in which they are all based in Richmond,would make possible a program for the district tailored to its needs, and, finally, woulddevelop a communication linkage between the State Library and libraries in the field. Thislinkage is rather weak at the present time and it is vital that it be strengthened.

General expenses such as that of travel and the consultant's salary would be 1.

part of the regular State Library budget. Communication costs, including those associatedwith WATS lines and teletype facilities, would be covered either by the State Library budgetor perhaps more appropriately under Title III.

No special proNision has been.made in our plan for the establishinent ofresource libraries and.we feel that none should be made. Even though the burden of inter-library loan activity may fall more heaVily on one library than another, the matching fundsprovided in the funding plan (item 1) should easethe burden.. More importantly, as biblio-graphic.inventory tools are built and subject strengths developed, the state should not find.itself tied to a few centers. Effort should be made to spread the load although: this willadmittedly be difficult to do at the outset and each library should be a two-way participantin the.program.-.The state should avoid the funnel concept, for excessive reliance on a fewcollections willsbe a restrictinginfluence in the long run and will discourage two-way partici-pation.

Although some individuals will inevitably be dislocated by the mergers, theywill not be numerous, because of the relatively weak library structure in Virginia at present.In addition, the dislocations, will be more than offset by comparable r)ew opportunities, andthe library network that .we envision will provide greater possibilities for advancement thandoes the present structure.

19

21rthur 1313tittle,3inc.

It would be easy for us to recommend formation of cooperative librarysystems instead of regional-mergers, and there was a temptation to do so. However, we feelthe "state of public library service in Virginia does not warrant the establishment of-systemsas one usually thinks of them. In a state the size of Virginia, the, services normally offeredby systems can frequently be provided more effectively at the state level. Equally important,a library system providing essential services to libraries on a minimal basis costs at least 500per capita and more ngarly 75¢ per capita to operate. This could mean a cost of close to$3' million without appreciable additions to the staffs or collections of individual libraries.Our recc.amendation is that there be many large units of service either regional librarygroups or municipal libraries, or a blending of the latter into the former where practical,and that a single library system exist, operated by the State Library.

ROLE OF THEEXTENSION DIVISION.

The Extension Division is an integral and vital part of library service on thestate level; we recommend a major shift in its policy and staffing. A plan for reorganizingthe State Library was presented to the State Librarian in an informal report dated May 1968.We are including here, with some revisions, a portion of the plan which pertains to theExtension Division.

With a staff arid organization pattern as diagrammed on the next page, pro-grams could be developed for interlibrary cooperation, for service to institutions, and forservice to public libraries. This could be done through visits and workshops and with someparticipation of Extension Division' staff in programs sponsored by the local libraries. Abasic recommendation was to have the Extension Division a major service unit within theState Library and to develop an active program of library service to and with all librariesin Virginia, not only public libraries.

In order to meet these demand's and provide new. services which are expectedunder federal aid programs, the Extension Division should have the staffing pattern as outlinedin the organization chart below. .A brief description of the positions recommended follows:

The position of institutional consultant under Titic, IVa should beestablished. This individual would be responsible for developingresources in the institutions; conducting in-service training programs,preparing programs utilizing audiovisual material; easy-to-read (largeprint) materials, and new individual instructional materials.

The position of consultant for cooperative practices should be-establishedto be responsible for establishing and developing the librity networkamong all types of libraries. This position would be funded underTitle HI. Relations with schools;,elementary and secondary, are

20

2trthur ZD :Kitt! c, r.

ExtensionDivision

AdministrativeConsultant

InstitutionalConsultant

Public LibraryConsultant for

Special Services

Consultantfor Cooperative

Practices

TechnicalConsultant

Public Library Public Library Public Library Public LibraryConsultant Consultant Consultant. Consultant-Coordinator Coordinator Coordinator Coordinator

becoming vitally important and would be covered here as would develop-ment of service plans and the cooperative building of resources.

A position of general public library consultant for special servicesshould be created. The librarian occupying thii position will beresponsible for, the following:

Providing consultant services on public relations.Developing statewide recruitment programs.Developing personnel policies for libraries when requested.Administering the scholarship and certification programs.

The position of technical consultant should be established to deal withproblems relating to the use of microforms, use of the computer inlibrary programs, Use of equipment in all programs including audiovisual,the.bookmobile, charging systems,.library furniture, and communicationequipment.

Four consultant- coordinators should be assigned, one to a district, withthe following responsibilities:

21

Zhibur 133Litticilnr.

Providing consultant services to the libraries in the district.Coordinating planning.Administering a budget designated for service within the district.

A position of administrative consultant should also be established. Thisindividual would prepare federal programs, coordinate book selectionby member librarius (federal funds), prepare book lists, and generallyassist the head of the Extension Division.

Our recommendations for new positions for this division may seem excessive, but in fact arenot. We look for dramatic growth in the scope and quantity of service from the ExtensionDivision. It seems necessary and inevitable!

follows:Our further i'commendations regarding the Extension Division are as

All book ordering, cataloging and processing should be transferred to theGeneral Library; This should occur regardless of whether centralizedprocessing becomes a reality for the State Library.

A program of workshops should be instituted and more professionaltime.spent in adVising local libraries on resource building and staffrecruitment.

It should be the responsibility of the Extension Division to prepare theservice portion of all federal programs. This would be done in conjunc-tion with advice.from the administrative assistant in the area of finances,forms, etc., andwith the.cognizance of the State Librarian.

Personnel in the . xtension Division located at Richmond will beresponsible for:

Providing administration for consultants at Richmond and in thefield.

Providing specialized consultant services.

Assessing statewide needs of libraries.

Building bibliOgr' aphical tools, audiovisual circuits, subjectcollections, and book lists.

Conducting publicity and recruitment.

22

arthuic Za 3Little, Ns.

The positions of public library consultant-coordinators require more descrip-tion in this report. We envision these positions being filled by individuals with a minimum offive years' practical experience in at least two different public library situations. It needsto be pointed out that they should be mature, capable, and imaginative, able to inspireconfidence and able to work with many different personalities.

We recommend that each consultant be responsible for one of the fOurcoordinated distric1s of library service. The consultants would live in their respective districtsand would spend approximately two days a month at the State Library. Each consultantwould be responsible for coordinating activities in his district and arranging for local andregional publicity, a delivery system if required, and the preparation of regional biblio-graphical tools. He would alSo participate in the distribution of funds within the district,not only to individual public libraries, but also to Title III Programs.

Our aim is to provide a coordinated library approach to service with minimumadministrationcosts. At the same-time, we recognize the need for greater direct contactwith the State Library and feel that consultants living in the areas they serve can, developuseful liaisons with the State Library.

J

23

Arthur 211.1ittle.3htr.

IV. STATEWIDE SERVICES OF THE LIBRARY NETWORK

INTERLIBRARY LOAN

The Virginia State Library receives and honors interlibrary loan requests, notonly from public libraries, but also from school, academic, and special libraries. The individuallibrarian can decide whether to request the title from a neighboring library, from the StateLibrary, or from an academic or special ,library. However, there is no pattern of service froma small library to a larger library and on to the State Library and then to academic or speciallibraries. A request received at the State Library is filled as a rule on the same day it isreceived if the volume is available. If the title is not in the State Library's collection, thereis no established routine for referring the request to another library, nor are there biblio-graphical tools to aid in the location of it in a local library. Even though the book is in print,there is no routine established for ordering the title to Till a local interlibrary loan request.

In order to eliminate some of the clerical operations involved in handlinginterlibrary loan requests at the State Library, several recommendations were made in aninformal report to the State Librarian. These included the use of printed forms for requestswith the name of the requesting library printed on them; the use of printed mailing labelssimilar to the ones now being used for mailing films; and the use of the original request formas the charging record at the State Library.

Interlibrary loan requests should be handled in a much more simplified mannerthan is currently the procedure. A multicopy request form should be developed and sent toall participating libraries. They should be requested to fill in the bibliographical informationand to stamp or write in the name and address of their library. When received at the StateLibrary, these forms should then be given to a library assistant for checking in the publiccatalog. Only those which present problems should be turned over to the reference librariansfor checking. The titles listed in the catalog should have the call numbers put on the requestslips. The slips should be sentto the stacks and returned in the book or with a check in theappropriate spot to indicate the volume was not on the shelf. If the volume is being sent, thefirst copy should be kept at the Virginia State Library for its records, the second should beleft in the book and sent back to the requesting library.

The Interlibrary Loan Committee of the ALA Reference Services Division hasproposed a code, or set of principles, for interlibrary loan, which we think deserves considera-tion by the Virginia State Library. It has also developed a form for interlibrary loan requests,which may be unnecessarily complicated for Virginia's purposes.* We have reprinted belowa simpler form (three parts; no carbon required) that has been found useful by one librarysystem.

The code and the form are described in Special Libraries, Vol. 59, September 1968, pp. 528-531.

25

Arthur 1B31.tttle,Inr.

Library Date

Substitute Acceptable Deadline

Author

Title

Subject

Level: Adult Juv. H. S. College

Basic Advanced

Reader's Name

Address.

Remarks

Approved by

Mailing labels printed with the name and address of each public library in thestate should be used. This could begin immediately, as printed labels are already availablein the film section for many libraries.

In order to improve the interlibrary loan service, consideration should begiven to the use of library assistants or clerks in the first checking of the catalog and thehandling of routine requests; to the development of a procedure for forwarding requests ona regular basis to academic or special libraries and even to other public libraries; and to theconsideration of titles that are not now in the collection but should or could be purchased.

We examined the interlibrary loan requests received in 1967 at the StateLibrary from a limited number of libraries. The historical or research-oriented material,except in science, was often available at the State Library. Some of the titles noted whichwere not in the State Library's collection but probably are in the:larger public librariesincluded:

Mumford, Lewis, Plight of the American CitiesHoffer, Eric, Passionate State of MindRunbe6k, Margaret, The Great AnswerHorgan, Paul, Centuries of the Santa FeWilson, Dorothy C., HerdsmanDonleavey, H.P., The Ginger Man

Others could be listed but these titles are typical of the general reading material sometimesephemeral which is undoubtedly available in some library. The question :: is, which libraryand how does the reader find it?

26

arthur

We believe the Virginia State Library has a responsibility not only to providematerials for the public libraries but also to serve as a clearinghouse to locate material in thestate. We recognize that to provide this type of service without a union catalog is difficultbut not impossible. For example, agreements could be reached with the university librariesin the state to supply material in certain subject areas to public libraries on request from theState Library. Further, many members of the staff of the Virginia State Library have aworking knowledge of one or more libraries in the state which could serve as another sourceof information. In addition, in many other states it has been discovered that the out-of-printephemeral material is frequently available in very small libraries.

Interlibrary loan is a two-way street. The Virginia State Library receives manymore requests than most other libraries in the state. We believe many of the public librarieswould be willing to loan to other libraries, if the requests were sent to them. Therefore, wealso recommend a system of referrals from a smalllibrary to a county to a regional to theState Library. In other words, some of the requests for popular titles, both current andretrospective, could be filled by intermediate libraries rather than going directly to the StateLibrary as they appear to do now.

A network of library service is definitely in order, with the State Libraryacting as a switching station, a locator of materials and a high-level general resource library.To support its role as a resource center;the State Library should assist the development ofsubject centers within the state. There is an expanding role for the State Library. Its collectionmust broaden coverage is now uneven and the depth will depend on development of auseful network within the Commonwealth.

An efficient communication net' vork can expedite the processing of inter-library loan requests. The smaller libraries can request titles from the nearest library havinga teletype. This library will contact other public libraries and when feasible the State Library.The State Library in turn should have the facilities and t.4e organization to contact suchinstitutions as the University of Virginia, Virginia Polytechnical Institute, and the like, aswell as special libraries. Coordination of State Library activities with those of other institutionsshould be developed under Title III of LSCA.

TWX machines have been installed in the following twelve libraries:

.Virginia State LibraryEastern Shore at AcccmacArlington CountyCharlottesville Public LibraryWalter Cecil Rawls Library and Museum, CourtlandFairfax County Public LibraryRockingham Public LibraryMartinsville Public LibraryNorfolk Public Library

27

ZTthnT

Richmond Public LibraryRoanoke Public LibraryLonesome Pine Regional Library, Wise

A pattern of service should be developed around these TWX centers for interlibrary loanrequests. Using TWX as a location device will be expensive, we know, but it can serve as anintermediate step while the needed bibliographical tools are produced.

Concern has been expressed because there appears to be no follow-throughprocess in locating titles for interlibrary loan at the state level. As a result some libraries havediscovered they can request titles from other libraries, expecially academic institutions andin some cases, other public libraries. This means, according to the answers on our question-naire, that the most active interlibrary loan program exists in the northern section of the state,the area frequently considered in the District of Columbia metropolitan area. The librariesmost frequently used to fill requests were listed as the Virginia State Library, the Universityof Virginia, the Virginia Polytechnical Institute, Duke University, the Library of Congress,the Fairfax County Public Library, and the Norfolk Public Library. The libraries which mostfrequently requested material were the Fairfax County Public Library, the Arlington PublicLibrary, the Alexandria Library, the Falls Church Public Library, and Hampton Institute.

A favorable climate for interlibrary loan is evident from the responses to theitem in our questionnaire on who is included in the responding library's interlibrary loan-program.

ILL User Number of Libraries

High school students 51

College students 54Graduate students 49Elementary school students 20Businessmen 53Adult readers 65Teachers 1

With 51 libraries reporting that high school students participate in interlibrary loan out of 81libraries returning the questionnaire, the proportion in Virginia is higher than in most otherstates of which we are aware. If interlibrary loans are utilized by librarians as a means ofobtaining books and information for patrons of all ages and backgrounds, then the develop-,.ment of an extensive program will be a natiiiiTaitifeWth of library service in all geographicareas.

28

Zrthur D.3Litt1c31nr.

REFERENCE

Along with an interlibrary loan network, a reference service network should beestablished using the same communications channels. This would provide the small librarieswith access not only to large collections of materials but also to librarians trained andexperienced in finding information. It cannot be implied too strongly or stated too oftenthat an individual's residence should not stringently limit his access to materials which hislocal library cannot possess or to information which he needs for his daily endeavors or hisrecreational or creative interests. The interlibrary loan and reference service should be inter-related programs. It is expected that because of the broad funding policies under the state .

program, local libraries will be willing to assist one another without the establishment ofresource centers. With the growth of regional library groups, subject centers, and biblio-graphical tools, the service patterns in a few years will be sufficiently broad to bypass theresource center concept. Meanwhile, we believe that the load on the few libraries that mightfeel pressure is light enough to be alleviated by the increase in funding.

The State Library's administration has not to date been convinced that thedevelopment of union catalogs and other bibliographical tools would justify their costs in acomparatively short period of time. This position has until now been sound, but with thechanges in production, the use of automation, and the development of the MARC II tapesby the Library of Congress, should be reexamined.

Answers to our questionnaire and personal observation by the case team indicatethat there is no overall program for follow-through on informational requests. Among

REFERENCE SEARCHindividual libraries, 39 reported that they do not have apolicy for following through on unanswered questions;

Date: 34 said they do have. The Virginia State Library has not.Question in detail: had an aggressive program to provide answers to libraries

nor have any of the larger libraries to smaller ones. Smalllibraries are faced with the problem of cost, and theinaugrationof an overall program has been almost pre-

Nome or Patron Telephone Na: cluded by the demands of the Extension Division staffdemonstration programs. This is an area of service in

Sources censulted: which the General Library Division should participatecooperatively with the Extension Division. Workshops onreference techniques, new reference tools and services,and the development of programs can be most effective ifsome of the librarians actively involved in reference

Answei round in:service participate.

Searched by:

No 'answer givenwith approval oh

Patron ssotified:

We recommend as an important addition to the referenceprogram the building of a file on reference searches. Thiswould include unanswered as well as answered questionsand would be used by the Extension Division as a guide

29

2ITthur D3littlr,31nr.

to the building of collections, a training device for new staff, and an evaluation tool for boththe collection and the staffs use of the collection. Obviously, a record of this sort will neverbe kept unless a standard procedure is inaugurated for keeping it. We have reprinted here(reduced to about half size) a form that some libraries have used to record reference questions.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL TOOLS

If patrons are requesting titles or information not available in the local libraryor in the State Library, every effort should be made to locate them in other libraries. At thepresent time, the Statc. Library does not have the staff nor the facilities to locate materials.Union catalogs and union lists of serials must be developed for libraries in Virginia.

A union catalog should locate a title in no more than 10 libraries in Virginia,but more detailed regional catalogs should also be developed, A union list of serials includ-ing not only current acquisitions but holdingS of discontinued titles should combine in onelist the public libraries and the academid and special libraries. Title III provides partial -

funding for the development of programs for interlibrary cooperation. The form of a unionlist of serials would be a book catalog or some similar printed form. The union catalog forthe Commonwealth would probably best be produced at this time on tapes or disks with aconsole at the State Library providing access to it and receiving requests through the TWXnetwork. .ConsoleS should eventually be placed in certain other libraries in the state.

We believe that development of a union catalog should proceed in conjunctionwith establishment of a centralized processing service. We discuss thislater in the presentchapter, under Centralized Ctaloging and Processing.

COMMUNICATIONS AND DELIVERY

Before the union catalog is put on tape or disk, some ideration must begiven to improved communications. There are areas in Virginia from ,ch a call to theregional library is a toll call for a member library, and for most of the libraries it is a toll callto the State Library in Richmond. On the limited budgets that so many of these librarieshave, they must think twice before calling for assistance and for interlibrary loan. Telephonecommunications must be improved in such a manner that the individual library does not haveto pay for each and every call to another library or to the State Library. The Virginia StateLibrary should investigate the establishment of an IN-WATS line for libraries to use insteadof the TWX when they want guidance or answers to policy questions. .

It is interesting to note that 42 libraries would like delivery service from theState Library to the regional library and that only 13 libraries do not want this service.Thirty-four libraries would like delivery service from the regional library to the local library.The frequency of delivery service to the local library varied as follows:

0

30

artlivr D.little,3Jztr.

Daily 13

Twice a week 10.

Three times a week 3

Less often 19

In our talks with librarians, a number of them commented on the excellent mail service theyreceive from the State Library. They felt that as the TWX became operational, time would besaved because the original mailing of the request could be eliminated. The real value in adelivery service would be in the distribution of printed lists, equipment, and films and otheraudiovisual materials, as framed paintings, slides, filmstrips, and the like. In line with this,if films can be requested by TWX, perhaps the required three weeks request time now inforce can be cut to two weeks.

DEVELOPMENT OF LIBRARY COLLECTIONS

Once a communications network is developed and facilities are available forlocating material, the interlibrary loan and reference network is ready to,operate, but facilitiesmust be organized to develop collections which can be used. The Virginia State Library'scollection is strong in history and literature from an historical perspective. It is weak inscience, business technology, and contemporary fiction. It is receiving more and morerequests for materials in the fields of education, social problems, and current literary criticism.It cannot hope to fill all these requests and continue to develop a research-oriented collection.Responsibility for current materials in certain areas must rest with the local or regional library.The responsibility of the Virginia State Library in building its book collection must be clearlydefined and understood by libraries in Virginia. Approximately 30,000 titles are currently .

being published each year in the United States. Regional library groups, if funded accordingto our plan, should be responsiblelor purchasing 10,000-12,000 titles each year, with theState Library responsible for another 10,000-12,000 titles. This would mean that approxi-mately 22,000-28,000 titles would be available in the library system.

Subject Collections

One of the major weaknesses of libraries in Virginia. is the comparative newnessof most collections. Location of books with imprints earlier than 1940 or even 1945 presentsa challenge, especially with the lack of bibliographical tools. In our questionnaire we asked,"Is there any subject(s) in which your collection has great depth?" The classifications usedby respondents varied because no checklist was supplied with the question. The followingsubjects were listed by more than one library:

31

avthur 3D.31.ittle,3nr.

Virginiana 7 Financial services 2

Genealogy 7 Management 2

Art 5 Civil War 2

Local history 6

Other subjects listed include:

General reference TheologyLiterature CookeryMusic BiographyHistory Business and technicalAmericans _ReligionRare newspapers Modern fictionPatrick Henry

It is quite possible that the above subjects could be used as a guide in locating books untilthe publication of some bibliographical tools.

Thirty-two libraries signified interest in a cooperative subject acquisitionprogram. Their fields of interest are:

Virginiana HistoryEnglish and American literature SpanishBusiness and industry Useful arts or fine artsLocal history Patrick HenryDewey 300's and 600's GenealogyNorfolk and Virginia history English literatureBiography Drama and theaterBusiness and technology Wythe County, historyReference Antiques and decorative artsModern creative literature Juvenile booksPoetry ArchitectureArt TheologySocial and political commentary EducationArms and, armor FurnitureAerospace technology Civil War.Military history Covington, Allegheny, BathMusic counties (paper and iron)

We feel that there is considerable merit in developing subject collections within the state.Public libraries, because of budget constraints and the immediate needs of their public, tendto build collections which'resemble one another. Book selection guides and book lists,while extremely useful, lead to a similarity in collections. When one thinks of a collection,

32

aTtbur 73.31.1iticITtr.

with the community it is intended to serve, as an independent entity, this is perfectly justi-fiable. However, regardless of size, few libraries do not feel the need to turn to othercollections for materials not in their own collections. Because of this similarity in depth,subject coverage within an area such as a state is sorely limited. It would be relatively inex-pensive to add the 15,000-20,000 pertinent nonfiction titles published annually by placingthem in twenty or thirty subject centers located in the state. To aid in the book selectionprocess, a plan should be. instituted whereby subject center libraries get review copies ofbooks in their subject areas.

The added titles would-be grouped by subject and sent by the State Library to thesubject centers, where they would be incorporated in the basic collections. A plan for thedesignation of centers should be developed by the librarians of the state in consultation withthe head of the Extension Division. Once a library has been chosen as a subject center andmade responsible for, say, poetry, this library would expect to receive most of the titlespublished in a given year on poetry. Many of its titles would, of course, also be in thecollections of most other libraries, but this library would have in addition the unusual orspecialized titles not in general demand. It would be expected that a.position as a subjectcenter would be a long-term assignment and the library would assume responsibility forassessing the adequacy of its collection. All items would be available under interlibrary loan.Since these items would be cataloged and processed .at the State Library, the accessioninformation would automatically be available for building the union catalog., This materialwould be superimposed on the local collection and would be paid for by the state. It wouldin np way reflect on the titles acquired for the State Library collection. Eventually the StateLibrary will become more of a last-resort source as collections are built in the field and amajority of requests for material are answered in the field.,

An acceptable, but from our viewpoint less desirable; alternative to the, developmentof subject centers would be to automatically place this material at the State Library insteadof in the various libraries. The important consideration is that the material be added to thestatewide resource inventory and that it be available to the patron either directly or throughinterlibrary loan. However, subject centers have the advantage that they give libraries aroundthe state a sense of involvement in the program. They also make it possible to some extentto respond to localized demand for-certain materials. Finally, they relieve the State. Libraryof trying to find space in Richmond for a vastly increased and rapidly growing collection.

Less desirable, and from our point of view unacceptable, would be to concentratethis material in two, three, or four major public libraries. This we, feel would tend to placeadded and not always measurable burdens on institutions which will for other reasons becalled upon to assume substantial responsibility for the effectiveness of the network.

Our reason for offering the State Library as an alternative to theosubject centersis that a special collection at the State Library would be much easier to organize. Individuallibraries may not wish to assume responsibility,as subject centers, and problems of space andstaff turnover offer problems in readjustment and continuous education. For the most part,

33

Arthur 111.3tittie,3nr.

though, we feel that these problems can be resolved and that the difficulties of subjectcenters are more than offset by their advantages.

Specialized Research Material

There is need for certain kinds of research material to backstop the network. Asubstantial amount of the current information required in business and in science and technol-ogy, as well as other fields too numerous to mention, is provided by periodicals. We recom-mend that possibly $10,000 be spent annually to extend the existing file of periodicalsavailable on microfilm at the State Library. Back files of the past ten years of desiredperiodicals would be in order; such back files would probably be completed in about fiveyears. Printouts would be available from the State Library, and reels could occasionally beloaned to libraries possessing microfilm readers.

The State Library should seek to participate fully in the activities of COG, asystem of libraries including a few in Virginia forming a metropolitan Washington, D.C.,complex. Many of the resources available in Washington, D.C., cannot of course be locatedelsewhere, and as a total complex of information it has few rivals.

The State Library should develop pipelines into the State Technical Services Pro-gram, and into NASA referral centers and other banks of information now being developedby industry and made available in most cases on a subscription basis. Sophisticated literaturesearches could then be included in the services available through the State Library to libiariesin Virginia.

CENTRALIZED CATALOGING AND PROCESSING

On the basis of response to questionnaires, there seems to be substantial interestin statewide centralized processing. Forty-one of those contacted believed that it should beoffered as opposed to 26 who did not. (A number of individuals did not answer this questionor said they had no opinion at this time.) Seventy of the respondents catalog and processbooks in their own library, five use commercial firms, and ten have the service performed byanother library. It is our personal belief that this service in some forms should be offered ona statewide basis to the libraries of Virginia. The lack of professional staff, the inordinateamount of time spent on behind-the-scenes activities, some of them imperfectly done, andthe fact that centralized processing ties together rather nicely with the effort required to buildbibliographic inventory tools are arguirtents we posed in support of our recommenda ion.There is a period of transition involvei at present in being able to clearly view the role ofcentralized processing operations in a variety of situationF, It is clear that the Success ofMARC tapes will have an impact on how .:Jrvices will be offered. Commercial processingfirms, as well as libraries, will have access to these tapes, and this must be considered inplanning.

34

Arthur

In our opinion the State Library is clearly the agency which should be responsiblefor offering centralized processing or any part of it on a statewide basis. As recommendedin an internal-management Study of the State Library, it was recently concluded thisresponsibility should not be vested in the Extension Division but either in the GeneralLibrary or the new administrative unit about to be created.

Our recommendation is that:

The State Library should develop one ordering, cataloging, and processingoperation for its own library.

This operation should be mechanized using the computer, MARC tapes, etc.

At the outset the State Library should offer a full ordering, cataloging, andprocessing service for the current materials to a limited number of libraries.

The center should provide cataloging, using MARC tape printouts, to anylibrary requesting it.

A second phase should include other libraries wishing to use the processingservice.

Included within this second phase should be the development of a procedureby which a union catalog can be built. Items purchased by this agency wouldautomatically be storecnn-Tiiiiion catalog file, on disk, requests for catalogingonly off MARC tapes would provide another input device, and finally libraries,possibly by sending in a catalog card or an order slip, can provide the centerinformation concerning additional accessions or withdrawals;

The State Library should offer full processing or just cataloging to memberlibraries at the actual cost to the State Library.

The State Library should investigate the possibility of utilizing commercialprocessing firms to supplement its processing effort.

It is our feeling that a union catalog can best and least expensively be prepared ifit is, closely affiliated with a centralized processing effort. It is possible to use the same inputtwice, and from a cost viewpoint this is quite important. Also, a segment of the union catalogcan be built automatically-by capturing input to the processing center.

We feel that centralized processing should be offered but that many libraries willwish to utilize cataloging services only. This service would provide a set of catalog cards,book jackets, and a book card for titles contained on MARC tape. This will limit the ordering

35

2(rthur D3Little.3lnr.

and processing load on the central agency. Libraries requesting this type of service only wouldorder, receive, and process books themselves, forwarding copies or orders to the State Libraryand receiving in return the cards and jackets.

A detailed study including development of a computer program and the design ofthe union catalog files and of operatingprocedures for working with MARC tapes, ordering,reporting, processing, billing, maintaining receivable files, etc., should be undertaken beforecentralized cataloging and processing are offered.

OTHER SERVICES

Already pointed out hc..s been the need for reference service, consultants and work-shops, interlibrary Ician, a union catalog, cataloging and processing, and a communicationsnetwork as services provided by the Virginia State Library, Other services which librariansmentioned in answering our questionnaire were publicity releases, art work, model staffmanuals, traveling exhibits, special-subject books, slides, records, state publications, and ofcourse leadership and funds. Some of the suggestions were repeated as activities in whichregional libraries should engage, for example, processing, interlibrary loan, consultants, train-ing programs, messenger service, a newsletter, display work, a film center, audiovisual material,book repairs, resource materials, telephone reference service, pictures, TWX, a regionalborrower's card, book selection, a union catalog, and professional storyteller. It is obviousthere is a great deal of overlap but at the same time it becomes quite evident that there is

Need for the services which have already been discussed as well as for others. Two additionalservices are worth brief discussion here: provision of audiovisual materials at the district orregional level and recognition of district or statewide recipocal borrowing privileges.

Each of the regio/J1 libraries should have some audiovisual materials, and con-sideration should be given to having some duplicate prints of films from the Virginia StateLibrary collection deposited in certain regions, Film circuits in each of the four districtswould make films available on a rotating basis to libraries in the district and might releasesome of the time pressure currently being experienced by many libraries and their patrons.

Reciprocal borrowing by individuals in given districts or on a statewide level wouldresult in greater use ofimaterials. A library card for a statewide operation should be institutedonce a coordinated network of libraries is in operation. Granted that there are procedureswhich would need to be worked out and adjustments that would have to be made in existingroutines to accommodate reciprocal borrowing arrangements, we do not, believe the difficultiesare insurmountable. Indeed, regional borrowing privileges now exist in other states. Virginia,as it inaugurates a new program for public library service, should incorporate the mechanicsfor a statewide borrower's card.

36

21rthur ZI3Little.31nr.

V. FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

LIBRARY EDUCATION

Our questionnaire included a question as to whether or not an accreditedlibrary school should be located in Virginia. Responses to this question more than anyother overwhelmingly indicated need. Sixty-seven said yes, there should be a library schooland only nine were not in favor.

In our discussions with librarians we heard both view:, most ably presented.Considerations in favor of it' include the further developMent of a professional climate, theneed to provide professional training for many individuals, probably on a part-time basis,and the need to produce librarians who will work in Virginia. Those against it point to thelocation of two accredited library schools in the Washington area, Catholic University ofAmerica and the University of Maryland, and to the south, the University of NorthCarolina. They fear that in the process of staffing a library school the best local librarianswill be sought for faculty positions, creating even more of a problem for local libraries,public and academic, especially. They also believe in this instance it is better to be withouta library school than to have one which is not accredited and that the funds used todevelop such a school could bempre effectively used for library service.

The insititution most frequently mentioned as the one place a library educa-tion program could be organized is the new Commonwealth University in Richmond. Asthis institution is studying new programs and the means of inaugurating them, it isimperative that a committee of the Virginia Library Association begin soon to investigatewith the University's administration the possibility of a graduate library school.

We would support the establishment of an accredited library school inVirginia.

We would encourage the participation of the Virginia.State Library andVirginia Library Association in the formulation of philosophy andgoals for such a school.

We believe that support of an accredited library school must be morethan verbal, it should also include the sharing of professionalexperiences and abilities, as well as an active program for recruitingstudents.

At the same time, serious consideration should be given to the advisability ofestablishing library technician COIP.SeS at some of the community colleges. This questionwas not included in the questionnaire but it came to our attention as we visited librarians.The shortage of personnel and the increased demands being made for services are evident in

37

2rthur

libraries throughout the country. On-the-job training is a continuing operation at all levelsof library service. It is the belief of many librarians that a common fund of knowledge isbasic for all who work in libraries and that many routines can be used in most libraries withlittle or no adaptation. It also might provide the impetus needed to have more uniformityin library practices and routines.

Again, librarians must be willing to serve as advisors as library technicianprograms are investigated and later established. They cannot simply decide in advance thatthese programs will produce a lower level of professionals, but they must institute safeguardsin the programs themselves as well as in the libraries to make sure graduates of these programsare not considered substitutes for professionally trained librarians. Graduates of theseprograms should be able to handle all routine clerical procedures such as those pertaining tocirculation, prodffiiiigrand the care and-maintenance of audiovisual collections. Theyshould also be able to supplement or complement the professional staff in certain biblio-graphical and public relations activities, for example, preparing displays, checking for correctbibliographical information, proofreading, and the like.

The, decision to support these programs must be made at the beginning so thatlibrarianswill be active participants in their planning. To have these programs developwithout the participation of librarians would be a major catastrophe for library service at alllevels.

Another type of library education program can be used at this time to bringpracticing librarians up.to date on the latest techniques, new services, and background forcurrent practices. Workshops or presentations on such special subjects should be held forprofessionals and all otherlibrary employees. They must be well planned and organized,.either on a statewide level or within a geographic region. They should be conducted by thebest subject specialists available, whether or not these are librarians. Librarians on the stateand local level should also participate when appropriate.

THE VIRGINIA LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

The Virginia "Library' Association, its committees, and its members should beencouraged to participate in the development of statewide library policy. It must be grantedthat individuals will frequently propose ideas, programs, or services which_will be of greatbenefit to their institution but of flesser or no benefit to other institutions. This is a minorfactor, given the system of checks and balances which is-already in existence. The case teamhas met with the Development Committee of the Virginia Library Association and found itsmembers to be most knowledgeable about public library services and programs in Virginia.The role of the State Library could be infinitely more effective with the active support ofthis group. The Association and its members will not support the State Library unless theyare informed of its activities, programs, and,plans.

38

Zithur ZD.3kitt1e.31nc.

Certainly in the matter of disbursement of funds, an explanation and dis-cussion of the decisions of the State Library would aid in the acceptance and understandingof the decisions. Generally speaking, few, if any, of the librarians we talked with aresatisfied with the current formula for the disbursement of funds. Libraries receiving most oftheir funds from the state object to the strings attached which limit the way the funds can bespent; other libraries receiving a goon portion of their funds from federal sources are con-cerned because of the possibility of a cutback in federal funding and the effect it mighthave. In another section of this report we have discussed funding in detail. We point to itnow because the current dissatisfaction is almost universal and we feel if the State Libraryhad sufficient staff for an effective public relations program, some of this dissatisfactionwould not be evident at this time.

Our experience with other state libraries and library associations has convincedus that a professional association can contribute in many ways if communication is a two-wayoperation and that receptiveness to new ideas is conducive to the development of otherideas. Closer working relationships-and better funding will develop a stronger team effort.One of the most acceptable means of cooperation from the viewpoint of members of theprofession would be to have the Development Committee or some such group workdirectly with the State Librarian and his staff serving as a sounding board for projectedprograms and services as well as publicity agents within the association.

An advisory committee should be appointed to advise the State Librarian onthe development of the public library program. The President of the 'Virginia LibraryAssociation and the. Chairman of the Development Committee should be ex-officio members.Both librarians and lay people should serve on this committee.

THE VIRGINIA STATE LIBRARY BOARD

In our report on the State Library, a recommendation was made in-stipportof the current policy of not having a member of the State Library Board serve more thantwo terms. At that time no comment was made about the composition of the Board.After visiting libraries and talking with librarians all over the state, we clearly recognize thewide differences in the geographic areas. Rural Virginia can be lovely farm country or asection of Appalachia, while urban Virginia can be the Navy-oriented section comprisingNorfolk-Portsmouth and the surrounding area or the Northern Virginia section which isconsidered a section of ithe District of Columbia metropolitan area.

Certainly the Board should reflect both the urban and rural orientation ofthe state but never to the point that one is continually in the minority. When vacanciesoccur in the Board, the Governor should as a matter of policy contact a wide variety ofsources including the Library Association in order to name the best qualified individual to

r the post.

CERTIFICATION

In this day when all libraries are facing problems in filling professional posi-tions and many libraries are finding_college graduates can be trained on the job to fillbeginning professional positions, it seems advisable to allow for this in the certificationrequirements. This could be accomplished by granting a special certificate to college gradu-ates who are working at a library or attending library school on a part-time basis. A singleprofessional position could be filled by two of these individuals in place of one professional.The library would be limited in the number of positions which could be filled in this manner,on the basis of either a percentage of the total professional positions or a flat number inrelation to the total staff size. This would enable many libraries to fill vacancies withbetter qualified individuals and would be in line with the general trend of having libraryinterns or library assistants in the beginning positions.

z

To a certain extent this is being accomplished at the present time. It tendsto occur by default when the supply of librarians fails. We feel that if it occurred by designit might be a more widely desirable avenue to professional development. No change shouldbe instituted, however, which would tend to diminish the mandatory, eature of libraryscience degreest or library directors or key professional staff.

OTHER LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS

A substantial number of individuals indicated concern over a provision in thelaw which provides that superintendents of schools automatically are appointed to fill oneof the trustee slots on regional or county library boards. On the surface there is good reason.for this provision. It theoretically enhances the possibility of cooperation between school and-public libraries and assures the board of having one professional educator as a member..However, in the:struggle for the tax dollar, apparently some superintendents,have viewedthe public library as a threat to schools; guided by the instinct to have strong schools first,they have been an inhibiting influence.on the growth of the public library they represent.Even though this may be.a problem here and there, we feel education of these trustees isthe answer. The trend toward closer cooperation between school and public library con-tinues and we feel that having imperfect communication is dectaedly better than havingnone at all. We recommend no change.

We do recommend that the Virginia Library Association look into theminimum level of support figure at the local level. We feel that if the State Aid Programthat is proposed is adopted, the minimum locaV support figure should be raised to $1 tocommence two years after the passage of the law.

In the informal management report on the State Library and its activitiesprepared earlier this year, we recommended that the law be changed to allow for interstatelibrary compacts.

40

arthur

Finally, the funding and organizational structure proposed in this report willnecessitate changes in some of the present laws regarding library service, as follows:

42-33, State Library primarily a reference library. This should be revised to include a state-ment describing the State Library-as-head of a statewide network of libraries.

42-34, Under management of Library Board; membership and chairman. We believe seriousconsideration should be given to increasing the size of the Board from seven to nine oreleven members. We believe this would allow for greater representation on a geographicalbasis as well as providing balanced representation from rural and urban areas.

42-24, Grants for development; 42-25, Limitations on such grants; 42-26, Grants to improvestandards. All three of these will have to be revised to provide for the funding which has beenrecommended for the new program of service.

42-28, Standards of eligibility for aid; reports on operation of libraries. New standards willhave to be developed which reflect the changes in the program. Reports on operation oflibraries should continue to be required, adjusted to meet the program. Employment ofcertified librarians should continue with exceptions as noted in the present law included inthe revised statute.

42-29, Expense of administration. The statute should be revised to show cost of administra-tion is not to exceed 10% of appropriations, but not less than $500,000.

42-30, Procedure for purchase of books and bookmobiles and payment on salaries. Thissection should either be revised to conform with the new program or, perhaps moreappropriately, be revoked and a new statute prepared.

42-2, Contract for library service. This should be revised to provide for outright mergerswith representation on the Board of Trustees.

42-5, Establishment of regional library system. This should be revised to emphasize the factthat a regional library group consists of an actual- merger of libraries into a single unit.

42-6, Expenses and funds of regional library system. This statute should 1), revoked and anew statute drawn up to provide for the inclusion of state as well as local funds.

42-7, Withdrawal from. regional library contract. This statute should say that withdrawalunder the proposed program would mean a cut in state aid for the regional library group.Provision should also be made for requiring the vote or petition to be taken at least sixmonths, and preferably.a year, before the actual date of withdrawal.

41

II

21rthur 3D3Littlartr.

APPENDIX

QUESTIONNAIRE

Virginia Public Libraries

Name of Library:

Regional headquarters library:

Type of Library:

Regional

County

City

Town

1. What is the governing authority?

City Manager

Board of Trustees

2. What hours is your library open?

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Satdrday

Sunday,

County Manager

Other

Winter Summer.

Open Closed Open Close&

3. Do you have an annual report available for distribution to the generalpublic?

Yes

4. How many professional positions are allocated for in your budget?

5. How many professional positions are filled? (Please give figuresin full-time equivalents)

6. Do you have a 'Friends of the Library Grnmp or a similar organization?

Yes

7. Do you have access to a computer?

Yes

If YES, what make and model?

No

No

8. Number of registered resident borrowers:

. 9. -Number of registered non-resident borrowers:

-10. Do you have reciprocal borrowing arrangements for individual patronswith any library or group of libraries?.

Yes

If YES, please name the libraries.

11. How many interlibrary loans were initiated at your library last year?

A -2

arthur 111.1.ittle3Inc.

12. How many of these were filled?

13. Name the three libraries most frequently used to fill your requests.

a.

b.

c.

14. Bow many interlibrary loan requests were received by your library

last year?

15. How many were you able to fill?

16. Name the three libraries which most frequently requested material.

a.

b.

c.

17. Which of the following are included in your interlibrary loan program?

High schoolstudents

College students

Graduate students

Elementary school students

Businessmen

Adult readers

18. Does your library own or lease equipment such as:

Microfilm reader

Reader printers

Teletype

Recording machines

Photocopy machines

Projectors

How Many

19. Does your library have resources in the following areas?

Microfilm

Microfiche

Other microforms

Films

Tapes

Pictures

How Many

20. Which of the following facilities are available?

Bookmobile

Branches

Meeting room' in library

in another building

21. Would you be interested having a delivery system, from the StateLibrary to the regionalolibrary?

Yes

aribura.littic.31nr.

22. From the regional library to your library?

Yes No

23. If YES, how often do you feel delivery service should be made toyour library?

Daily

Twice a week

Three times a week

Less often

24. What special programs are library sponsored?

Film programs

Discussion groups

Story hours

Book lists

Art exhibits

Other (please specify)

25. Do you at the present time participate in any cooperative programswith other libraries or regions?

Yes No

If YES, describe them briefly or attach description information.

arthur Mitittic.31nr.

26. Where are your books cataloged and processed?

In your library

Commercial firm

By another library

Other (please specify)

27. How many titles were processed in your library for the last fiscalyear?

28. Do you feel centralized processing should be offered as a statewideservice?

Yes No

29. Is there any subject(s) in which your collection has great depth?

30. If it were decided to develop a cooperative subject acquisitionprogram, is there any subject area you would like to have your libraryhandle?

Yes No

If YES, please name the area.

31. Do you a procedure for following through on unanswered referencequestions?

Yes No

If YES, please describe the procedure.

A-6

2r thur ?D.littic,31fir.

32. What services would you like to have provided by the Virginia State

Library?

33. What services would you like to have-provided by the regional

headquarters library?

34. What do you consider to be the most pressing needs in your library?

35. Do you feel there should be an accredited library school in Virginia?

Yes No

36. What do you believe are the three greatest assets of public libraries

in Virginia?

A-7

avthur